Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Tuesday, 8 December 2020

Joint Oireachtas Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government

Planning and Development Bill 2020: Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage

Mr. Paul Lemass:

The Deputy asked about the choice of dates from 1 August to 12 April. The previous Residential and Tenancies Valuation Act 2020 looked back to 30 March. The view is that that Act protected people who were in receipt of payments during that period.

A person in receipt of payments between March and August and beyond until 11 January is covered by the Residential and Tenancies Valuation Act 2020 and can still make a declaration today and up to 10 January under that Act. That Act came into effect on 1 August so that is the timeframe we are looking back to in this regard because the previous period was covered by the Residential Tenancies Board. That is the logic behind the timing.

On the five days to respond requirement, when a declaration is made there are two actions, namely, a declaration is made to the RTB and also a request to the RTB to put the person in touch with MABS. This happens immediately. The RTB on receipt of the declaration puts the applicant in touch with MABS. Separately, the board requests that the applicant engage with the landlord within five days to consult on an arrangement. The purpose of this is to put an obligation on people to make that happen. It is not that the agreement has to happen within the five days but a person must engage within five days. Part of the concern is that with 348 declarations we have only had recourse to seven people going to MABS. There is an uncertainty as to what others are doing. We do not know if they have reached agreement or not. The GDPR issues will be addressed because the applicant, as the tenant, makes the request. I think that is correct but I will double check it.

On the issue of additional work for MABS, in the context of the overall numbers presenting at the moment, we do not believe this is an issue. We consulted with the Department of Social Protection at the time of the original Act. We do not believe that additional work is an issue. There is an important point that I would like to make. The genesis of this amendment is not public health. The genesis of it is the economic fall-out as a consequence of public health. It is for this reason the interests of the landlord have are being given a weighting.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.